I'm glad this new piece breaks down Saletan's terrible garbage. But there is a point missing which bothers me: If I told you that people who's phone numbers end in an odd digit have higher IQs than those with an even number you would ask how that could possibly be.

The traits we use to denote race -- skin color, eye shape, hair texture and nose shape -- have as little connection to anything that might be genetically significant in terms of IQ as the last digit of your phone number.

The genetic diversity of sub-saharan Africa is equal to the genetic diversity of the rest of the world combined. This finding, coming from mtDNA studies, helps to reinforce the "out-of-Africa" hypothesis for modern homo sapiens, that homo homo sapiens came out of Africa about 100,000 years ago and completely replaced existing species, that there was no mixing of genes. Because homo homo sapiens lived in Africa for maybe 100,000 years before leaving, you would expect this result.

Anyway, there is as much of a connection between an isolated village in Finland and an isolated village in Paupa New Guniea as between an isolated village in Senegal and one in Mozimbique. If you were to create a map of genetically related populations, the things we use to map race (skin, hair, nose, etc.) would have no overlap.

In short, genetically speaking, there is no more reason to think "black" people have anything in common in terms of intelligence or anything else, other than the things we see (hair, skin, etc.), than people with phone numbers that end in even numbers.

If the people in Toledo Ohio have higher IQ than people in Lansing Michigan, you might wonder what kind of possible genetic link there could be, since these groups do not breed with each other only and have not been isolated from each other for very long, or at all. They come from a wide diversity of old world ancestors... it just defies reason.

So to with "race" and IQ. Can't be. If you want to find a link between a population and a trait, you have to clarify the population a lot better than this. Race is not a population.

It's really frustrating to have this discussion again. I want this over, no more Bell Curves, no more Saletans, no more proto-racist Neaderthals writing about this crap. It ain't so. It' can't be so.

The traits we use to denote race -- skin color, eye shape, hair texture and nose shape -- have as little connection to anything that might be genetically significant in terms of IQ as the last digit of your phone number.

Those superficial traits are not the end of racial differences as anyone familiar with sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs will attest. Both of those diseases are, however, strongly correlated with racial groups possessing certain distinct superficial traits.

The genetic diversity of sub-saharan Africa is equal to the genetic diversity of the rest of the world combined.

On its face, this is irrelevant. But I think you are referring to a well-known fallacy. I've addressed this one before: base pair differences aren't, by themselves, what matters functionally and small changes can result in significant differences. The functional level at which proteins express themselves is at the level of the whole gene and, at that level, humans are far more diverse than base pair counts would lead one to suspect. That is why humans are so different chimpanzees even though we share "95% or more of all genes." The presumption among hereditarians is that various racial groups have been undergoing selective pressures for greater intelligence that Africans have not been undergoing or at least not as intensely.

This finding, coming from mtDNA studies, helps to reinforce the "out-of-Africa" hypothesis for modern homo sapiens, that homo homo sapiens came out of Africa about 100,000 years ago and completely replaced existing species, that there was no mixing of genes. Because homo homo sapiens lived in Africa for maybe 100,000 years before leaving, you would expect this result.

A great deal of selection has been occurring since we left Africa. That should be obvious to anyone aware of the very superficial traits you mentioned and the less superficial ones I mentioned.

In short, genetically speaking, there is no more reason to think "black" people have anything in common in terms of intelligence or anything else, other than the things we see (hair, skin, etc.), than people with phone numbers that end in even numbers.

There is plenty of reason. You've presented no real reason to believe it isn't true and the data doesn't support your opinion. The fact that you don't want there to be evidence doesn't make it so. There is no reason to assume merely because Africans are genetically diverse in some respects that they haven't been under similar selective pressures or that diversity of some genes is an absolute guarantee of major differences in the mean IQ of entire ethnic groups.

I find the rest of your post's points are incoherent, I'm afraid. Unless you clarify their meaning or relevance, I can't really address them.

I want this over, no more Bell Curves, no more Saletans, no more proto-racist Neaderthals writing about this crap. It ain't so. It' can't be so.

But the truth just won't go away, I'm afraid. No matter how many times you try and bury it under specious reasoning.

Sickle cell is a function of multigenerational exposure to malaria and can be found in all racial groups. In different numbers, but does not pertain to my comments about population genetics.

Oh, and selection has been happening IN Africa at the same rate it has been happening OUT of Africa.

Wait, one more thing: Tay-Sachs is not a "White" disease: it is within a more or less closed breeding population, Wester European Jews (were closed for a long time). That is a good way to do genetics: by population. Africans are not a closed breeding population. How many Ethiopian Christian Highland-Mali Muslim Lowland marriages do you think there have been in the past 2000 years? One? Maybe one and the service was probably in Washington DC in 1996. And you talek about BASE PAIRS for genes but I said MTDNA. Mitocondrial DNA. You don't even know what I'm talking about and dismiss my points as irrelevant. The genetic diversity of Africa is not irrelevant. If China and Finland and everyone in between are more related than a village in Senegal and Mozimbique, it matters. Evolution since leaving Africa, which is 30,000 years in the case of Europe, is not that long. One group of Africans have been separated from another group of Africans for just as long. There is no reason to think evolution stopped in Africa. What an idiotic reply you made here. I could rip it up further but I have to go take care of my baby, adopted from Ethiopia, you Neaderthal.

The more I read your post the lower your IQ seems to me. You but be African.

Hey Tommy2435343, you and your 95% genes, which isn't the point, not knowing what mtDNA is, talking about "fallacy I've discussed before" -- you sound like a semi-educated putz. You took a couple of courses somewhere and learned a few terms that you think make you sound smart but I can out-science you with one eye closed while feeding a baby and reading a 5-year old a story. You don't know science. You ain't very smart. Your links are not relevant and don't address my point. I'm smarter than you. Blacker, better educated, smarter and superior to you in every way. Do you know what population genetics is? Do you understand the concept of breeding population?

Sickle cell is a function of multigenerational exposure to malaria and can be found in all racial groups. In different numbers, but does not pertain to my comments about population genetics.

Sickle cell anemia is a genetic disease found most frequently in sub-Saharan Africans, particularly West Africans. If you were in a crowd of mixed Nigerians and Swedes and you were looking for examples of people with sickle-cell anemia, you would have no trouble determining which population to test, nor would you have any trouble identifying the appropriate subjects based off superficial traits like skin color. No one is denying the existence of smart Africans, what they are arguing is that there are less smart sub-Saharan Africans than, for example, smart Japanese. Far from not pertaining to your comments, it gets to the heart of the matter: genes are not evenly distributed among various races.

Wait, one more thing: Tay-Sachs is not a "White" disease: it is within a more or less closed breeding population, Wester European Jews (were closed for a long time).

Yes, it is located most frequently in a particular ethnic group, Ashkenazic Jews - proof that you don't even have to go to the level of major races of the world to find genetic variation among identifiable ethnic groups.

Oh, and selection has been happening IN Africa at the same rate it has been happening OUT of Africa.

Not for the same things, obviously. Differences in skin color and different rates of sickle cell anemia among populations are evidence of that. We are talking about the evolution of intelligence here and you've presented no evidence that characteristic must have necessarily evolved equally among all races in equal measure.

And you talek about BASE PAIRS for genes but I said MTDNA. Mitocondrial DNA. You don't even know what I'm talking about and dismiss my points as irrelevant.

Mitochondrial DNA has no known function and the handful of base pair changes in mtDNA (yes, mtDNA is composed of base pairs as well) are how we trace lineages on that side. A single base pair change (out of approximately three billion base pairs) among the functional part of our genome can mean the difference between being healthy and having a severe, terminal genetic illness (or it can mean nothing at all). Your previous insinuation that small amounts of genetic variation between different populations cannot make a difference, or that larger overall differences between certain groups must necessarily make a difference, is what is not only irrelevant but entirely wrong. Selective pressures for particular traits matter. For example, the fact that Tanzanians may possess greater overall genetic difference from the Senegalese than Swedes do from Arabs is no guarantee that eye color must be more diverse among Tanzanians and Senegalese than it is between Swedes and Arabs. The same holds true of cognitive traits like intelligence.

One group of Africans have been separated from another group of Africans for just as long. There is no reason to think evolution stopped in Africa.

I never claimed evolution stopped in Africa. I indicated that selective pressures for intelligence have not been as great in Africa as elsewhere, just as selective pressures for blond hair and blue eyes hasn't been as great in sub-Saharan Africa as in, for example, northern Europe.

What an idiotic reply you made here. I could rip it up further but I have to go take care of my baby, adopted from Ethiopia, you Neaderthal.

Save the ad hominem. Sorry, but you haven't ripped anyone. You're demonstrably wrong and now you're simply sputtering.

You ain't very smart....Blacker, better educated, smarter and superior to you in every way.

I'm not interested in your personal life or your opinion of yourself. I'm interested in the topic at hand. Thanks.

Your post is patently ridiculous, in so many ways. I don't have the energy to respond to everything you stated, but lets just deal with the sickle-cell anemia issue.

You are correct, sickle-cell anemia is most prevalent in Africa (along with a few other places, like India, but mainly Africa). Is this because "black" people are somehow genetically inferior, they can't stand up to the disease? NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT! The real reason is that it has a heterozygous advantage against malaria. The allele responsible for the disease is recessive meaning that you need to sets of it, from both parents, in order to get sick. Had this been the entire story, it would have disappeared sooner or later, due to natural selection. However, just having one defective allele is actually advantageous, it gives you a stronger resistance to malaria. That means that in those areas where malaria is prevalent, the gene will not be selected out, because it gives you an advantage.

This means that if malaria had been roaming through northern Europe instead of Africa, then the Swede would certainly be MUCH more likely to suffer from sickle-cell anemia. If both your parents are carriers, then it doesn't matter whether you are white, black, green, yellow or heliotrope, you would still suffer a risk of 1 in 4 of having the disease. The distribution of sickle-cell anemia has NOTHING to do with the "race" of a population, it has everything to do with the prevalence of malaria.

This is basic stuff. Like, really basic. If you don't understand heterozygous advantage, you have no place discussing science.

Now, go away. No one want you here and you are only making an ass out of yourself.

YOU SAID: Sickle cell anemia is a genetic disease found most frequently in sub-Saharan Africans, particularly West Africans. ME: Right. MOSTLY. It increases with prolonged (generational) exposure to malaria, was common in much more common Southern Europe when malaria was common there and disappears rapidly from a population... what's this have to do with intelligence? YOU SAID: If you were in a crowd of mixed Nigerians and Swedes and you were looking for examples of people with sickle-cell anemia, you would have no trouble determining which population to test, nor would you have any trouble identifying the appropriate subjects based off superficial traits like skin color. ME: So what? Irrelevant. Does being a carrier for sickle-cell, which can occurr in any "race" make you dumb? YOU: No one is denying the existence of smart Africans. ME: In a way, I am. African as a genetic population is meaningless. There might be a link between genes and intelligence but you would first have to prove that with populations who are related genetically. Africans are not related genetically, as I said ten times. You don't seem to get the point. YOU: Genes are not evenly distributed among various races. ME: And genes are not distributed evenly between a town in Zaire and another in Namibia. And if you don't know the "race" of the populations you would never know is the group is in China or Peru. YOU: Yes, Tay-Sach is located most frequently in a particular ethnic group, Ashkenazic Jews - proof that you don't even have to go to the level of major races of the world to find genetic variation among identifiable ethnic groups. ME: What do you mean "don't even" have to go the major race -- I'm saying you CANNOT go to "major races." You missed the point again, genus. 
YOU: We are talking about the evolution of intelligence here and you've presented no evidence that characteristic must have necessarily evolved equally among all races in equal measure. ME: I have argued that intelligence is pretty damn unlikely to be linked to race since there is as much genetic diversity about "blacks" as among the entire rest of the world. Also, Europeans split from some group of Africans maybe 40,000 years ago. One group of Africans split from another group before that. So, East and West Africa are further apart than some part of Africa and Europe. Why would intelligence occur in groups that left Africa time and time again but independently from one another but not in groups that move from place to place within Africa.
 YOU: Mitochondrial DNA has no known function... ME: It has a function but is used for tracing genetic links since it is only inhereted from the mother. I called you out for "BASE PAIRS" since you didn't seem to understand what DNA I, and everyone who does population genetics, means by mtDNA. YOU: Your previous insinuation that small amounts of genetic variation between different populations cannot make a difference, or that larger overall differences between certain groups must necessarily make a difference, is what is not only irrelevant but entirely wrong. ME: You must have me confused with someone else. I have been trying to get you understand that "race" is a social not a genetic construct. I never mentioned small amount of difference between races because I don't think talking about the genetic difference between races makes any sense if there is more difference within one race than within all the others combined. If you understood my point, you could argue with me. You are arguing against what you think I probably meant, not what I said. YOU: I never claimed evolution stopped in Africa. I indicated that selective pressures for intelligence have not been as great in Africa as elsewhere, just as selective pressures for blond hair and blue eyes hasn't been as great in sub-Saharan Africa as in, for example, northern Europe. 
ME: Okay, the eyes has to do with dark and the skin color with vitamin D. Why would intelligence be selected independently many times outside of Africa but never within? Makes no sense. YOU: Save the ad hominem. Sorry, but you haven't ripped anyone. You're demonstrably wrong and now you're simply sputtering. ME: You took elements of logical reasoning when you were a freshman in college and learned "ad honinem" and "fallacy." Congrats. But you don't even understand what population genetics is and you are dumb as shit. And a racist. How's that for Ad Honinem, you igornant piece of shit.
 YOU: I'm not interested in your personal life or your opinion of yourself. I'm interested in the topic at hand. Thanks. ME: Then try to understand what I said, if you can. So far, you are arguing issues I did not raise.

So if you want establish a link between intelligence and race and then attribute the difference to genes you would need to do this: 1. Define intelligence and get a cross cultural test that works. (not easy) 2. Get some evidence that this defined intelligence is inhereted genetically on an individual basis. (not clear yet) 3. Define genetic populations. (something better than "they look alike to me") 4. Compare the populations' performance on the test. If there is a difference and you controlled for education and environment and made sure your test was language nuetral, you now have some kind of link between intelligence and population on a genetic basis. Now you move to "race." You need to define race. Who's in, who's out. Now you apply the test to a sample of each race. It's a huge project. And a lot of these caveats are really tough to crack: what is intelligence? how can a test not depend on language? control for environment, how? find populations that have been isolated breeding populations for awhile--- where's that? do genetic testing... You could do this but no one has. So, until then, you can try to extrapolate from data that isn't good. But what data there is shows that we are all (all groups) pretty much the same genetically, we haven't been separate from one another very long, we can all do the same stuff... and genetic intelligence is not very important on a population basis, and probably not too important on an individual basis either. So get back to work... me too. Hard work is more important that intelligence and trying to convince a racist knuckhead like Tommy12345678 that he is a moron is an uphill battle.

For those who support the hypothesis that just as certain phenotypical traits are differentially distributed that therefore the same would hold for different populations as a whole. The usual proof offered for this hypothesis is the IQ test and its average scores. But all IQ tests demand behavioral responses to a set of recognised stimili--paper, pencils, recognition of words, patterns, numbers, etc. So the environmental/cultural input would be obviously influential here.

But given intra-cultural[think of obvious things such as regional accents, taste in foods, behavioral gestures, etc.] and inter-cultural environmental variabilities--absent a totally uniform environment the thoughtful researcher would always be stymied by the possible differential gap between an individual's NOMINAL SCORE and his/her potential REAL SCORE.

But back to the main question: is it possible that the environments of frigid and temperate weather Eurasia could have selected for more efficient cognitive abilities in humans. We have the answer already.

Elements of Homo Erectus migrated from East Africa some 500,000 years ago to settle in Frigid weather Eurasia. These elements became full humans in the process with their body plans and other traits adating to the new environments. These elements were given the name Neanderthal by physical anthropologists.

The Neanderthals survived in Eurasia(and Europe of course) for more than 300,000 years and had to face all the challenges that the frigid and seasonal weathers and ecologies threw at them. If the variable-ecology hypothesis were correct then the Neanderthals would have developed technologies that would have been more developed than those of the incoming migrants from tropical and sub-tropical Africa. They would have proven themselves to be more equipped adaptively than the much more recent incomers.

But it didn't work out that way. The tropical ecology adapted migrants from Africa proved to be much more adaptive than the long-resident Neanderthals--who by the way had larger crania than their incoming guests. Ergo, the ecologies of cold-weather Eurasia really was not more challenging than the environments of Africa.

Furthermore, survivability in Eurasia did not require any more cognitive abilities than knowing how to track game-animals, scavenge, pick wild fruit and to find a safe and warm place to live. Note that the ability to create fire artificially was already discovered in Africa. So too the ability to make body clothing against the elements. So too the ability to create lithic tools for for hunting and cutting.

The point is that once ability to think abstractly was developed--as demonstrated in African cave paintings--humans were were more than adequately cognitively equipped to survive anywhere.

Sure there are genetic configurations that produce specific non-adaptive(Tay Sachs) traits in some groups or traits that are adaptive(Malaria) only for specific environments but such affect only a very small proportion of the populations in question. Proof: in the Malaria areas of Africa people still routinely succumb and once in awhile some people die. Some people are chronic malaria sufferers. So where are the supposed prophylatic effects of the Sickle Cell syndrome. Note too that West African variety of Sickle Cell is also found in Greece, Sicily and Turkey.

The same for Tay Sachs and Cystic Fibrosis(Northern Europeans). These non-adaptive syndromes affect only very small percentages of the relevant populations.

In the case of Tay Sachs one may say that the relevant assumed recessive genes manifested themselves as dominant because of close kin assorted mating. But close-kin assorted mating was/is the norm for a significant percentage of the world's populations. In many parts of Africa and Asia it is routine for for first cousins to marry.

But again the world's peoples did not learn to read and write until a few hundred years ago. The capacity was there all along with the first homo sapiens populations in Africa. So whatever differences there are in POPULATION IQ scores world wide are due only to environmenal/culture effects.

After all, Greece which serves as the "civilizing"--as is claimed--template for post-Barbarian Western culture scores 92 on IQ tests. Westerners also claim that the earliest inspiration for their intellectual culture derives from Mesopotamia should also know that Iraq(modern Mesopotamia) scores 87 on IQ tests.

The simple explanation for group differentials in IQ is that industrialized societies with its specific kinds of cultures and sociological environments score higher than those that are not. At present India has an IQ of 81 but as it continues to industrialize its score will increase. The same for places like Thailand(91), Indonesia(89), Nepal(79) and Burma(86). As they industrialize their scores will change.

Your post is patently ridiculous, in so many ways. I don't have the energy to respond to everything you stated, but lets just deal with the sickle-cell anemia issue. You are correct, sickle-cell anemia is most prevalent in Africa (along with a few other places, like India, but mainly Africa). Is this because "black" people are somehow genetically inferior, they can't stand up to the disease? NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Straw man. Sickle-cell anemia was not used an argument for the inferiority of blacks, but as an example of a trait that varies among racial groups that is not superficial (like eye color, hair color and texture, skin color, etc.) I'm arguing that the fact that superficial traits may not play a role in intelligence does not demonstrate less superficial traits are unimportant. Read my posts before you respond to them, please.

That means that in those areas where malaria is prevalent, the gene will not be selected out, because it gives you an advantage.

I'm well aware of why sickle-cell anemia (and related blood disorders like thalassemia) evolved. That wasn't my point.
Maybe you should try and read my posts next time so that you can address my arguments rather than addressing some imaginary argument that exists only in your own mind.

This is basic stuff. Like, really basic.

Yes, I know. It is also entirely irrelevant. So why are you bringing it up?

Now, go away.

No.

No one want you here and you are only making an ass out of yourself.

The honor of being the ass belongs to you as you haven't addressed a single point I've made. If you don't have the energy to argue against a point I've made, I suggest you might want to spare yourself the effort of arguing a point haven't made.

YOU SAID: Sickle cell anemia is a genetic disease found most frequently in sub-Saharan Africans, particularly West Africans. ME: Right. MOSTLY. It increases with prolonged (generational) exposure to malaria, was common in much more common Southern Europe when malaria was common there and disappears rapidly from a population... what's this have to do with intelligence?

Go back and read the post where I originally mentioned it. In response to your statement "The traits we use to denote race -- skin color, eye shape, hair texture and nose shape..." I pointed out:

Those superficial traits are not the end of racial differences as anyone familiar with sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs will attest. Both of those diseases are, however, strongly correlated with racial groups possessing certain distinct superficial traits.

My point is that racial differences go beyond the superficial differences you named but are often correlated with those superficial racial identifiers. The fact that skin color, eye shape, hair texture, etc. play no role in causing sickle-cell anemia doesn't mean you aren't much more likely to have sickle-cell anemia if you're a Nigerian than if you're a Swede. It's also a good guess that people with brown eyes make up a lot more cases of sickle-cell anemia than people with blue eyes because blue eyes tend to be associated with a race with a very low rate of sickle-cell anemia. In the same way, genes responsible for intelligence don't have to be caused by differences in skin color, hair texture, or eye color yet they may be correlated with these superifical racial traits.

African as a genetic population is meaningless.

No, it isn't.

There might be a link between genes and intelligence but you would first have to prove that with populations who are related genetically.

Sub-Saharan Africans are a diverse genetic population, but they can be clearly differentiated from non-Africans in genetic tests.

Why would intelligence occur in groups that left Africa time and time again but independently from one another but not in groups that move from place to place within Africa.

There are many theories about that, but to give you one example, the need to plan ahead to survive seasons. If you didn't plan ahead (and plan smartly) in the cold European winters thousands of years ago then you probably weren't going to survive the season. That is a severe selective pressure favoring intelligence (not to mention, future time orientation). It might also explain why northeastern Asians - the Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese - tend to score higher on IQ scores than south Asians (Indonesians, Thais, Filipinos). Certainly, cold winters aren't the whole story, but they are an example of one kind of selective force that has exerted itself more heavily on Europeans than on Africans.

In any event, your point is akin to arguing that there should be more diversity of eye color among Africans than Europeans since Africans are more diverse than Europeans. It just isn't so. We don't know exactly why Europeans have greater diversity of eye color than other groups, even other groups under somewhat similar conditions, like northeast Asians, but we do know it's true. There is no guarantee that mere genetic diversity, absent selection, will result in groups of significantly higher intelligence. Africans can be both more diverse genetically and less intelligent.

I have been trying to get you understand that "race" is a social not a genetic construct.

Race is not a social construct. Steve Sailer provides a good and very flexible definition of race: a partially inbred extended family. I like that definition.

I never mentioned small amount of difference between races because I don't think talking about the genetic difference between races makes any sense if there is more difference within one race than within all the others combined.

That's the problem. I do think those small differences matter. The overall greater genetic diversity of Africans is no guarantee of their diversity in all genetic traits. Hair color, eye color, skin color, and the prevalence of certain genetic disorders are all evidence of that.

But you don't even understand what population genetics is and you are dumb as shit. And a racist. How's that for Ad Honinem, you igornant piece of shit.?

Not bad.

1. Define intelligence and get a cross cultural test that works. (not easy)

The ability to solve abstract problems. Current IQ tests are perfectly adequate for testing across cultures. Tests designed by white scientists and adapted only for basic allowances of language difference demonstrate that Northeast Asians perform even better than whites on tests whites design. Nonverbal IQ tests and non-written IQ tests also exist. My challenge to those who don't believe in g or believe there may be other intelligences more important to socioeconomic success than g is this: find me a chemist, biologist, physicist, mathematician, Fortune 500 CEO, sociologist, civil engineer, hedge fund manager, or even an English Lit professor of any race with an IQ of 85 or less.

In response to Damocles Sword:

As I indicated above, I don't think climate is the full story behind racial differences in intelligence, but evolution often has more than a single possible solution to any given environmental problem. Modern humans have survived in northern climates with far less physical adaptation than Neanderthals possessed. They've done so precisely by relying upon their wits. It probably took a certain minimum level of intelligence which the ancestors of the Neanderthals entering the cold north were not even close to possessing if they were to avoid extreme physical adaptation to the cold climate and develop cognitively. The more Neanderthals became physically accustomed to the environment, the less selection would have favored increased intelligence among them. Modern humans had enough intelligence to get over the deadly hump of cold winters that early Neanderthals didn't. They could produce a material culture suitable to surviving without nearly as much adaptation as Neanderthals possessed. From there it was mostly a matter of which humans were the better planners.

The truth is that we simply don't know what sort of challenges the ancestors of modern humans in Africa faced in evolving their advanced cognitive abilities. The conditions which brought modern humans about are still quite a mystery but that some sort of selection was involved seems certain. But if there is one thing we shouldn't doubt, it is that modern humans became as smart as we are because of the challenges we've faced.

I'm tired of Tommy12345663. I think he is way off, like other scientific racist, and is intentionally or through stupidity, not understanding that race (hair, nose, skin) is not a good way to divide human population if you want to and is very difficult to engage in argument, although he does keep coming back for more, which is nice so I get to insult him some more. Would someone else please hit his post back so I can stick to insulting him, which is much more fun? So, copy his last post and break it down someone... sloppy piece of psuedo science. Neadethals, climate.. oh jeeze. Dumb ignorant Nazi asswipe, lousy uneducated dufutz who read three books and they were the wrong ones, doesn't know human evolution, population genetics, fool, moron, sub-average intelligence... Okay, that's my part. Someone else want to deal with his dumbass post?